In Bad
Weather: Planetary Crisis, Joseph Masco examines concepts of planetary
crisis, by comparing those of nuclear war and climate change. He analyses the
relation of the Cold War nuclear arms race to the unprecedented research in the
earth sciences, and how they conflicted as planetary threats. He divides the article
into three moments in history (in 1953, 1983 and 2003) where there exists a
mutual focus on nuclear and ecological crisis.
The first part consists of the link between the
nuclear bomb and weather in Cold War sciences. This period sees the rise of a
new scientific effort to understand the post-nuclear global environment; the need
to comprehend the full effect of nuclear warfare produces unparalleled levels
of funding for earth sciences. This period marked a time in which “the global biosphere
was quite literally militarized by the US nuclear state” (Masco, 15) but also
became the object of scientific research. Masco is arguing that the
institutions and infrastructure for climate science are thus derived from the nuclear
arms race of the Cold War period.
This aspect can be compared to Bruno Latour’s understanding
of science. Latour argues that politics and science cannot be separated, and
that they are constantly affecting one another. The scientific field that was
created due to the nuclear arms race is therefore an example of politics and
science working side by side. In turn, Latour argues that this science must be received
and put into force by society, which explains which scientists were well
received during this Cold War period and which were not. For example, Masco
states that “key scientists who called for an end to nuclear detonations as a
matter of public health were, at this moment, positioned as enemies of the
state, and subject to intimidation” (Masco, 16). This is another example of the
correlation between science and politics.
The second part examines the influence of climate
change on nuclear policy. In this period emerged the concept of a “nuclear
winter”, the subfreezing temperatures, darkening periods and dramatic changes
in weather that would be created by a global nuclear war. Scientists in this
period began to promote the end of the Cold War arms race, as the fatal
scientific effects of the nuclear war were finally beginning to be understood
in their entirety. The third part analyses how perceptions of global warming
are affected by nuclear discourse. Masco argues that climate change was
understood as a threat to security policies, as opposed to a threat to the
earth; this summarizes the militarized position the US has taken to the threat
of climate change.
Lastly, Masco concludes by analysing the embedment
of nuclear concepts in US political culture. He summarizes how the security culture
of the US has been extremely affected by nuclear weapons, influencing its
response to global climate change and climate crises. He argues that climate
change however needs to be dealt with in a completely different political
manner than that of nuclear warfare; it involves “a new form of global
governance” (Masco, 30), one involving a collective global order. In this
aspect, Masco diverges from Latour, who argues that we can no longer appeal to universal
human interests in terms of global climate change, due to underlying divisions
in science. Masco on the contrary, proposes a planetary vision of
sustainability.
No comments:
Post a Comment